Klarinet Archive - Posting 001247.txt from 1999/04

From: arehow <arehow@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Re:Albert clarinet evolution
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:45:00 -0400

Dee Hays argues, very neatly, that Albert and similar systems kept sway
because of the relative prices of metal and wood. I suspect that her
argument, while elegant, is not correct. The same time that the Albert
system was developed was the beginning of the heyday of Brass Bands,
with cornets and bombards and bourdons and Saxhorns made all of brass.
The price of metal was not an issue here; Shaw noted that cedrtain
districts of England had 10s of 1000s of amateur bandsmen before the
20th century, mostly playing brasses.

But Dee then mentions the retention of the Muller characteristics in the
Albert and later Oehler. This, I think, hits it on the head. THe
Muller system is really incorporated into the Albert, allowing a player
to make the switch easily. To go to Boehm, very fundamental
things--(second register) thumb note is C versus C#, , four fingers is F
versus F#--must be relearned. These are the same on Muller, Albert and
Oehler. And, the keywork on an ALbert variety is simpler than on a
Boehm, thus cheaper to make, and less prone to breakdown.

I love the history of woodwinds and point out to all, that the AMerican
Musical Instrumetn SOciety, which has its own website, is a natural
organization for very many readers of this list.

Robert Howe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org